Bug#741573: Requesting input on TC deliberations about menu system and policy
[I think that what follows is entirely redundant with what I wrote earlier.] Le Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 08:32:58PM -0400, Sam Hartman a écrit : Steve claimed that the policy process is not a rough consensus process and that the fact that Bill objected in-and-of-itself might be sufficient to argue that there was not consensus. The process.txt document dated Spetember 14, 2014 does not support Steve's claim. I have not read previous versions of that document, and I don't know which version of the process the TC should look at here. Hi Sam, thanks for your efforts in resolving this conflict. After one year of discussion and negociation, following the policy change process, a consensus was found, with nobody standing up against it. A couple of weeks later, Bill abused his commit privileges and reverted the change. I think that this is clearly unacceptable, and I hope that the change on which everybody worked on and agreed will be restored without further discussion. If the TC insits on discussing, then the next question is what to discuss. And then you will realise that Bill's objections are still not clear as of today. Since Bill makes no effort to discuss, I think that the discussion should stop with the rejection of his objections. In the end, what is at a stake here is not the menu systems. The Debian menu system is not a default anymore, and after the release we will see its installation rate erode, and its usage to continue to fade away. Blocking the policy change has no effect, because already a large number of package maintainers disregard that in theory, it is a must to have a menu entry for every interactive program in Debian. So what is at a stake here, is whether the Policy reflects the current consensual and unchallenged practice, or whether it is lagging on real facts by a couple for years or more. Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#741573: Requesting input on TC deliberations about menu system and policy
Dear Charles, Last Thursday, the TC met. As part of that meeting we discussed #741573. See the logs at http://meetbot.debian.net/debian-ctte/2015/debian-ctte.2015-03-26-18.59.log.html . Currently the plan is that Keith is going to propose some text within the policy process that he believes might be a reasonable way forward. You'd expressed some concern about the approach the TC is taking and we were hoping to seek your input on where you think we are and on whether we're moving forward in a reasonable way. Speaking only for myself, it seems to me that there are a couple of challenges that make it somewhat difficult to address the question of whether the process was followed directly. Steve claimed that the policy process is not a rough consensus process and that the fact that Bill objected in-and-of-itself might be sufficient to argue that there was not consensus. The process.txt document dated Spetember 14, 2014 does not support Steve's claim. I have not read previous versions of that document, and I don't know which version of the process the TC should look at here. Secondly, we've seen some argument within the TC that the policy proposal might be technically flawed. While I don't think we want to second guess the process, at the end of the day we(the TC) have to be comfortable with our technical policy. I'd hope that if someone takes a technically valid approach different than the one we would take, we'd support the people doing the work taking the approach they favor. However, if a valid process reaches a conclusion we think has significant technical flaws, I would not ebxpect us to agree with that. I haven't yet seen an explanation of the technical flaw that may exist in the original policy proposal. I think we'd rather see something everyone is happy with than have a fight about process, but there does seem to be a number of people on the TC who care strongly about respecting the work done within the debian-policy list. We'd really appreciate your input on where this stands and thoughts about our current approach. --Sam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
